Thursday, May 18, 2006

Matayo Gets NRA Endorsement: Revenge a Motive?

Whoa, the NRA just endorsed Rep. Doug Matayo over Senator Jim Holt in the Republican Primary for Lt. Governor even though both have had straight "A" ratings.

I will tell you what this really means. It is straight up payback. Holt called them cowards two years ago when they were one of the conservative groups that left him twisting in the wind against Blanche Lincoln. She had a poor rating but they did not want to make her mad so they did not endorse Holt.

I say they can't find one pro-gun bill that Matayo supported that Holt did not. This endorsement is not about who will best protect your 2nd amendment rights, it is about revenge. Normally they only want to endorse sure winners so they can brag about what a high percentage of their picks win (if that is all they normally do, do we really need them?). This time they endorse a man at 12% in the polls a week before election day. The reason? "Get Holt, he blew our cover".

36 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could it be that the NRA knows that Doug Matayo would be a more EFFECTIVE advocate of gun owner's rights. Could it be that they recognize that he would be more likely to pursuade and convince legislators to support and defend the CONSERVATIVE issue of second amendment rights? Could it be that the NRA believes that he has not burned the bridges (much as Holt did with the NRTL and the NRA) required to rally large groups behind second amendment rights?

As a veteran, I know... and believe that Holt should know... that you don't shoot your general on the battlefield because you believe you know how better to fight the battle. I won't say that Holt is not a team player because that fails to fully describe his failing and has connotations that "team players" are weak. He is a vigilante.

I believe that the NRA wants a warrior who will stay in formation and not break ranks, but will give his life for the cause. That is NOT being a sheep, that is having self DISCIPLINE and maintaining MILITARY BEARING for the good of himself and the platoon.

The NRA wants and needs "A Few Good Men" and NOT "An Army of One." Good soldiers know that the team makes you strong, not weak.

Semper Fidelis

8:08 PM, May 18, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

It COULD be, about anything COULD BE,but it is not.

Your hypothesis fails to explain why they jumped in to indorse one straight-A candidate over another, but FAILED to endorse a straight-A candidate over a C- or D+ candidate in the Holt vs. Lincoln race.

Even if he was an ineffective fighter, at least he was fighting for them, which is better than a Blanche Lincoln who is effective at fighting AGAINST our 2nd amendment rights.

8:16 PM, May 18, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

PS- I am a veteran too and I just want to remind you that the Marine Corp is a part of the Department of the Navy!

8:17 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your hypothesis fails to explain why they jumped in to indorse one straight-A candidate over another"

Isn't that exactly what Holt accused the Arkansas Right to Life of doing when he quoted that they endorsed him for this race? He and Matayo have an equal rating with them, but Holt decided to lie and say they endorsed him.

8:24 PM, May 18, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

You are determined to take every word that Holt says as a lie, even when it is easy to see what sense he was talking about. The have endorsed him IN PREVIOUS RACES.

He was saying that both he and Matayo are pro-life, and as proof he was he was pointing back to that. Read the article. He does not say they have endorsed him IN THIS RACE, just that they have endorsed him.

Good grief. I hate dealing with crazy people.

8:33 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He pointed out the he had an endorsement from the Arkansas Right to Life. He did not say "they endorsed me in a previous race." His intention was to mislead.
The NRA endorsed Matayo, and rightfully so. Even if you don't like it.

8:47 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Even if he was an ineffective fighter, at least he was fighting for them, which is better than a Blanche Lincoln who is effective at fighting AGAINST our 2nd amendment rights."

You must not have had to learn military tactics or strategy during your time in the service. I think that even the "Art of War" says not to provoke an enemy from a position of weakness.

If that were the NRAs motive, then their endorsement of Matayo is just being consistent, certainly not something to whine and make petty maligning accusations that they are seeking revenge. The fact is, Holt may vote correctly on the second amendment, nobody disputes that, but there is more to being a good leader than just voting correctly.

9:02 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with 9:02.

How many people would vote for gun rights all the time? A bunch, thats how many. How many people should we trust to make sure good laws are introduced and that they have the backing to pass? Not many, and Holt is not one of them

9:11 PM, May 18, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

"certainly not something to whine and make petty maligning accusations"

Uh-huh. Like your accusation in your 8:47 post that "his intention was to mislead". You can't know that.

I've read Sun Tsu too. That race fell under the "missed opportunity" category. The position was only weak because groups like the NRA failed to "seize the day". She was vurnerable, but only Holt realized it, so his thrust was not adequately supported.

She was already treating them with contempt (and I am starting to understand why). There was little to be lost and much to be gained by backing Holt to the hilt in that race. If she had even gone more against them it would have been political suicide for her. She was already as far left as she could go. They could have won, but did not have the nerve for it.

9:12 PM, May 18, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I disagree with your presumption that the laws Matayo passed were largely good ones. He calls them "conservative", but most of them tended to spend more money and/or centralize power and control.

These days politicians are calling whatever they do "conservative" because the voters like it. They may even believe it themselves, I do not accuse them of lying. I merely point out that those are not classical conservative positions.

9:15 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Moore. How many excuses are you willing to make for Holt's mistakes? He did not say anything about his previous race. He said they endorsed him. Right now we are in a completely different race. His intent was to mislead people into believing that they endorsed him this time. You know it and so does everyone else. If he meant something different, he should've clarified it. He was trying to get away with something once again and he was hoping he wouldn't get caught. He did.

9:25 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Like your accusation in your 8:47 post that "his intention was to mislead". You can't know that."

Of course I can't know that, because he made sure not to clarify it. That, my friend, is the definition of "mislead."

9:26 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

I hate dealing with crazy people.

Is it POSSIBLE that any of this is due to the imprecise nature of using the English language combined with the fact that you are getting this second hand through the lens of a reporter?

I mean, you were not there right? Neither of you is Doug Thompson right? Did one of you call Doug up and ask if if Holt implied that it was in this race?

Is the ONLY CONCEIVABLE EXPLANATION in your minds that Jim Holt was deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking that ARTL was endorsing him in this race? Is it?

9:36 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess if that is the case, then we can expect Jim Holt to have them print a retraction in the next addition of the paper and clarify that he was talking about the last election and not this one. That is how we will know what his true intent was. It's up to him.

9:38 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And Mark, since you hate dealing with crazy people, that must be the reason you resigned from the Holt campaign.

9:40 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Mark M said...

Jim Holt does not control the Morning News and he can't get them to print a retraction. And there is no need to.

Reasonable people can understand what was meant. If you think a correction is called for, then Doug Matayo needs to call up Doug Thompson and ask him to print a clarification. Thompson will probably tell him what I am telling you- I hate dealing with crazy people.

9:42 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Resonable people do not remember who endorsed who in an election 2 years ago. Reasonable people read what is on paper for what it is, and there was no clarification.

It is not Doug Matayo's job to make sure that Jim Holt is being entirely truthful. Jim Holt is a big boy who knows how to dial a phone. If he was misquoted, then he should demand a retraction from Doug Thompson. If he was NOT misquoted, then we're back to square one: being misleading.

9:50 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are thousands of people that have moved to this state since Holt's last election. They have no idea who he is and that he ran for a previous election. Those people, I'm sure, thought he meant they endorsed him this time. How in the world would anyone who has lived here their entire life, remember that Holt had their endorsement last time? I think you are expecting to much out of people that don't eat and breathe politics. The article said they've endorsed him. If Jim doesn't want people to think that, then he needs to correct it.

9:50 PM, May 18, 2006  
Blogger Harvey Edwards said...

Not to change the subject, but, since you folks know someones intentions, your sure out of my league. Even the jarhead tried but couldnt convince me that he knew squat.
I guess I stayed away too long while trying to get Blanche Lincolns endorsement on an initiative that will hold public officials legally accountable for not fulfilling their oath of office. Even the grunt would maybe agree that without allegiange to our oath to defend our constitution we have nothing. The Dems have done it now down the party line to table the bill to prevent illegals access to identification cards.
Told you I would get off subject. And no it is not a smokescreen to lead folks from Jim . Jim can take care of himself.

11:14 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Mr excuse-

Maybe instead of revenge (are you serious?), the NRA endorsed Matayo because he is pro 2nd amendment/pro hunting.

Go look at the letter on Arkansas Truth. The letter says it in black and white. Does the idea that Holt doesn't even have a hunting license have anything to do with this. Maybe Holt is the RHINO.

12:11 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

I've seen the letter. I provided a link to the letter. It gives no rational explanation about why they endorsed one A rated candidate over another. If you think the second amendment was put there to protect the right to hunt then you are seriously mis-informed.

They can't point to one pro-gun bill that Matayo supported that Holt did not, nor one pro-gun bill Matayo passed that Holt did not. WHy should the NRA care that Matayo can get a bunch of bills passed that grow and centralize government? There job is to care about GUN RIGHTS bills. On that score Holt and Matayo are even. Ergo it is reasonable to conclude that this endorsement had more to do with petty political payback than the record.

6:32 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's Holt's own fault. He's spends his whole political career shooting down people who don't entirely side with him, as in the case of him calling the NRA cowards for not doing what he wanted.
He needs a reminder of something he should have been taught as a child: DON'T CALL NAMES. If he would learn this lesson, his list of enemies would not be nearly as long.

7:19 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Matayo earned this endorsement plain and simple. It's not easy to get, and according to what someone posted yesterday, the NRA usually endorses winners. Vote Matayo.

7:20 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, call names. Name names. We are tired of the games. We need people who will tell it like it is.

7:23 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tell it like it is and then complain that the organization didn't support them later on. Makes a lot of sense.

7:59 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, when the AFA favors Holt because (as you've accused) they personally prefer to work with him over Cinco Doug Matayo, they are evil liars who ignored Matayo's record. But when the NRA favors Matayo even though they give Holt the same rating, it's because they recognize a winner when they see one (a "winner," by the way, who just last week broke out of single-digit support). You are so inconsistent it makes one's head spin.

8:46 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The people from the NRA aren't working on Matayo's campaign. Bob Hester, John Vest and the others are working for Holt. The NRA isn't sending out hateful letters and emails about Holt. That isn't the job of an organization. If they want to endorse a candidate, then endorse them. Lift them up, but do no tear down their fellow Republican opponent. How would the AFAA have any credibility if Matayo wins? Would they then sing Matayo's praises in order to defeat the Democrat and expect anyone to listen? No one would listen. That is why a reputable organization does not tear down opponents from the same party. That was something the AFA was very clear about. They felt that Bob Hester and Debbie Pelley ruined their credibility by attacking Matayo.

9:18 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you say "ergo" Mark?

9:32 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So, when the AFA favors Holt because (as you've accused) they personally prefer to work with him over Cinco Doug Matayo, they are evil liars..."

Be honest--The AFAA, not the AFA. The national group does not support Holt over Matayo, that's why they stopped the state chapter.

9:32 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's funny how you keep refining your anger for AFA/AFAA. First, it was that they were 501C3 and they weren't allowed to endorse a candidate. Now, you're angry because they didn't fully and outright endorse Holt, but stopped short at merely preferring him. You are unappeasable.

Be honest, the problem with nationally recognized tax rights groups, family advocacy organizations, and illegal immigration watchdogs is that they like Jim Holt. And you can't stand that.

10:55 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If they want to endorse a candidate, then endorse them. Lift them up, but do no tear down their fellow Republican opponent.

AFA Arkansas does not care so much about Republicans, they care about families. It's the AFA, not the ARA. I know that is thinking outside the box for you party-over-principle types.

11:00 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democrats have families too. Does that mean that we will see the AFAA endorse a Democrat in the near future? I don't think so. And the policy of the AFA not endorsing candidates came from them. They were the ones who said they could lose their tax exempt status. They were the ones who didn't want that to happen. Obviously Bob Hester didn't care. The gripe was not about the fact that they endorsed, it was for the fact that they lied. Big difference.

12:56 PM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just got my email from the NRA stating their endorsement of Matayo. It was sent to 100,000+ members. Pretty impressive.

1:00 PM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Post it!

3:12 PM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Democrats have families too."

I believe that was the point.

3:19 PM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The AFAA worked a lot with Wooldridge. My guess would be that had Holt lost and Wooldridge won, they would have said nice things about wooldridge. They NEVER did ENDORSE anybody. They just gave a complimentary statement to use about Holt.

2:57 PM, May 20, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home